When an unmarried woman places her child up for adoption, how much say should the reputed father — or putative father, as they’re referred to legally — have?

Courts across the country have been grappling with this question. In Ohio, a man has been fighting to stop the finalization of his child’s adoption for more than a year. Several men in states across the country have been trying to stop the adoptions of their children in Utah, which is widely regarded as the most complicated state for putative fathers who want to claim parental rights. And two other cases have just been settled in Ohio, which gave the putative fathers more leeway than previously existed to stop adoptions.

Erik L. Smith is a paralegal who specializes in father's rights. He believes the process should be simpler for putative fathers who want to stop adoptions. He also successfully stopped his own son from being adopted seventeen years ago.

And Susan Garner Eisenman is an attorney specializing in adoption and child welfare law. She believes that there’s more to these cases than simply father’s rights.

Guests:

Produced by:

Tags:

Comments [36]

d28bob
from missouri, USA

Mark from Utah's third point attempts to justify fast tracking state adoption laws by saying that it's in the State's interest that children be raised in two-parent homes whenever possible. If that is so, then children of divorce should be put up for adoption! On the contrary, almost all states have streamlined divorce proceedings through "no-fault" laws.

While two-parent families may be a nostalgic ideal, the truth is that half of all children today live at least part of their childhood with single parents. Courts have always recognized fathers' rights in divorce custody proceedings; perhaps it's the "illegitimate" aspect of unwed parenthood that Mark has issues with?For the record, I was born an illegitimare bastard and am still treated as one by State laws which forbid me my own Original Virth Certificate...

Personally, I find the idea _appalling_ that a 'mere biological link' is sufficient to compel a man to provide child support to a woman should she opt to bear and raise a child, yet is insufficient to entitle him to notice of the adoption proceeding.

Lehr clearly laid out the idea that PFRs should be only one of several legal tools a putative father can use; in fact, a rather last resort. Unfortunately, many states have totally "misconstrued" what Lehr said and have made PFRs THE tool. I put that in quotes since what's really happened is that legislatures have followed the order of their masters in the adoption industry, and designed PFRs to serve it, not the actual people that adoption matters to: natural parents and their spawn.

I also think a Uniform Act is preferable, but as you probably know, states are able to cherry pick Uniforms Acts to fit their own needs.

One step I'd love to see is the abolition of interstate adoption outside of kinship, but that won't happen since it interferes with the Constitution right to travel.

I do disagree with you, though on your opinion on biological link., But I also have no idea why any man would want to take on the role of father; either. It's best then just to stay out of other people's business.

"This kind of law is unnecessary and wrong. It will add more layers of difficulty to those who properly use the legal to place a child for adoption or those who struggle for years to adopt."

Ahhh now we get to the heart of the matter. It's really all about the couples who want children and how to get children to them more quickly isn't it? Per usual, the rights and best interest of a child were not mentioned in a statement about why an adoption law should or shouldn't be made--only the perceived interest of the adults involved.

I'm sorry, but adoption is about finding homes for needy children, not finding children for needy adults. If babies are not available for adoption because more fathers and/or mothers are choosing to parent, good!

Children are not commodities to be passed to the most deserving bidder with the most cash to wave around.

Thanks for thinking of the children first ;-)

“Regrettably, in many cases, the emphasis has changed from the desire to provide a needy child with a home, to that of providing a needy parent with a child. As a result, a whole industry has grown, generating millions of dollars of revenues each year . . .” United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, 2003.

Babies are not the equivalent of potted petunias. They're people. They're citizens. They have rights. They have the right to the love and affection of both parents. Intent to disrupt the parent/child relationship by failing to notify a known father and giving him an honest chance to parent should be a crime. And not just a slap on the wrist, either. Kidnapping. Minimum 50 years.

"Personally, I find the idea that a 'mere biological link' is sufficient to compel a man to provide child support to a woman should she opt to bear and raise a child, yet is insufficient to entitle him to notice of the adoption proceeding."

WOW, just WOW. Where is the child's right to be raised by his/her parent being honored here? NOWHERE. Because children are NOT given even civil rights in this country.

I was adopted by a pedophile, alcoholic, mentally ill man and you think I WAS BETTER OFF?

What I think is someone is speaking from his POCKETBOOK and not from anywhere that contains a soul or humanity.

2. Nor were appellant's rights under the Equal Protection Clause violated. Because he has never established a substantial relationship with his child, the New York statutes at issue did not operate to deny him equal protection. Cf. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246. Appellee mother had a continuous custodial responsibility for the child, whereas appellant never established any custodial, personal, or financial relationship with the child. In such circumstances, the Equal Protection Clause does not prevent a State from according the two parents different legal rights. Caban v. Mohammed, supra, distinguished. Pp. 265-268.

IMO, this decision was a major departure from precedent, despite the majority's citations to that precedent. (It's worth noting here that at least one of the key citations was to a dissenting opinion in, as I recall, Caban, an opinion written by a member of the Lehr majority.)

In any event, Lehr's holding that a 'mere biological link' does not confer a sufficiently strong interest in the welfare of the child one has sired opened the gates to the widespread use of PFR. There are decisions from around the country which reflect the impact of these laws on men who stood ready, willing and able to raise their children, but were prevented from doing so through either ignorance of the law or the flight of the mother to another jurisdiction, with the intent of concealing her whereabouts and preventing interference with her decision to permit someone else to adopt the child.

Personally, I find the idea that a 'mere biological link' is sufficient to compel a man to provide child support to a woman should she opt to bear and raise a child, yet is insufficient to entitle him to notice of the adoption proceeding. What was intended to remedy a rare but headline making event (contesting custody after the completion of an adoption on the ground that the biological father had not received notice) has instead become a tool for the frustration of a some men's desire to step up to their responsibilities to their children.

At a minimum, today's mobility demands that a registration under one state's laws be recognized by all. While I would prefer that this be handled by the states, by means of a uniform law or a compact, I would accept a federal law to that effect. Unfortunately, no law can be that simple, if only because those with vested financial interests won't permit it to be.

PFRs became common after the SCOTUS upheld a New York PFR in LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983). It was a 6/3 decision, with White, Marshall and Blackmun dissenting. The putative father had challenged the law on due process and equal protection grounds. The majority, with Stevens writing, held:

1. Appellant's rights under the Due Process Clause were not violated. Pp. 256-265.

(a) Where an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by "com[ing] forward to participate in the rearing of his child," Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 392, his interest in personal contact with his child acquires substantial protection under the Due Process Clause. But the mere existence of a biological link does not merit equivalent protection. If the natural father fails to grasp the opportunity to develop a relationship with his child, the Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie. Pp. 256-263.

(b) Here, New York has adequately protected appellant's inchoate interest in assuming a responsible role in the future of his child. Under New York's special statutory scheme, the right to receive notice was completely within appellant's control. By mailing a postcard to the putative [463 U.S. 248, 249] father registry, he could have guaranteed that he would receive notice of any adoption proceedings. The State's conclusion that a more open-ended notice requirement would merely complicate the adoption process, threaten the privacy interests of unwed mothers, create the risk of unnecessary controversy, and impair the desired finality of adoption decrees, cannot be characterized as arbitrary. The Constitution does not require either the trial judge or a litigant to give special notice to nonparties who are presumptively capable of asserting and protecting their own rights. Pp. 263-265.

I don't understand why there is even a disagreement about whether a father has rights to his children. I'm an adoptee...who has never met her natural father..by his choice, not mine. But he certainly should have been able to exercise those rights if he so desired.

For those kind enough to care, I would like to clarify the following comment represented by the Takeaway show:

"Erik L. Smith is a paralegal who specializes in father's rights. He believes the process should be simpler for putative fathers who want to stop adoptions. He also successfully stopped his own son from being adopted seventeen years ago."

More accurately, and as I said to the show's producer, I work often in contested adoptions, and have helped attorneys representing all parties in the adoption equaltion, not just fathers. I believe the process should be simpler for putative fathers who want to stop adoptions IN UTAH. The process is sufficiently simply in many states, like Ohio. I did stop my son from being adopted 17 years ago.

I am an adult adoptee who was placed for adoption completely against the will of my natural father. He wanted to keep and raise me. He was not the "putative father" or the "reputed father." He was, and is, my father.

The adoption agency knew his identity and knew he wanted to keep me. But I was placed with strangers anyway.

This should not even be an issue. A child should never be placed for adoption without the father's knowledge. That man is the child's parent just as much as the mother is. Yet the system doesn't recognize this fact. Registries are not enough.

It is always in the child's best interests to remain with his/her natural family if possible. And this is supposed to be about the child, right?

As a mother of coerced adoption loss in the early 60's, I would have welcomed interest from the father. I am a bit torn on this issue because I believe every child should be raised, if at all possible, by their natural parents. I was abandoned and denied by the father. In the days of my loss, if you were not married to the father, then he was not allowed to have his name on the birth certificate. I would love to see what kind of "putative fathers' registry" the states have that might help a woman get support for her child from the father. It would have really come in handy for me. It might have even enabled me to keep and raise my child. A father who genuinely cares about the child should have a right to impede any adoption procedures, but I also think that this should be a case by case investigation.

The machinations of the adoption industry in the present day have become so smarmy and manipulative that I wonder about how our national government can continue to support it.

1) A child is always better off with their natural family, except in extreme cases.

2) Being adopted isn't a fun ride. A lot of adoptees I know were given up without the fathers even knowing they existed. Many of these would have wanted their father there, to say no. It would have been far better for many to have been raised by a natural father than two adoptive parents.

3) To say that all children should be in two-parent homes is to say that parents that divorce should give up their children for adoption.

4) Putative father registries are not good enough.

5) Is the father not a valid parent? Do most fathers play NO role in their child's life? Why should they be denied the right to raise their own children, or even to have a say in their child's future.

I don't understand why this is even an issue to debate! Of course a father should have a say!

The laws are stacked against fathers -adoption agencies fund for lobbiests to make this 'unjustice' a reality in the courtrooms.

If you are able to suck the father's dna out of a baby/child, then sure, maybe he should have no 'say.' But as long as he is a 50/50 contributor, Father's Rights are just as valid as the mother's - not less.

And yes, I agree with mara, that for adoption, merely writing a name down as the father is not good enough, dna tests should be done to confirm, because not only does the father have the right to decide for his child -

Mark: all states do not have PFRs. PRFs in most states are also difficult to locate and are unadvertised In Ohio, there has been no advertising, outside of an obscure webpage since the law went into effect in 1996. Please read Erik's account of his search for the Ohio registry at www.eriksmith.org.

The purpose of the PRFsuddenly is to guarantee that the potential father can receive notice. Nothing else What's so bad about that? No man is forced to register if he has no interest in what happens to his product.

Irresponsible women do run out For some reason a guy who was good enough to have sex with, suddenly is not good enough to be the father of the result of the tryst.

Why is it OK for a man to follow all the rules, ie register in his home state or a state where the mother supposedly resides, when mom is allowed to run off and hide in Utah and toss the kid into the spammer 12 hours after it's born? Short of ankle braceleting pregnant women what are potential dads suppose to do?. Stalk them?

IMO, women and their friendly adoption agencies and lawyers, should be prosecuted, for fraudulent behavior, fined, and eve sent to jail. Of course, that will never happen since the adoption industry is protected by government and liberal do-gooders. and its female wage slaves manipulated through industry induced shame and panic, and some weird idea that thes state owes them protection from their own bad decisions.

PFRs if used in the manner to which they were intended would be helpful and positive. However, they are not legislated or intended to be used in that manner. Currently PFRs are a just another tool of the adoption industry , which I assume you represent, to move product.

I'd like to see the federal government move out of adoption business all together, but this crazy quilt of PFR laws needs some kind of coherence. A clearhinghouse. That's not what this bill will do.

I'm going to repeat: Many father do NOT know they are fathers. A putative registry assumes that a man knows he impregnated someone. It should not be HIS responsibility to hunt down every woman he has slept with to make sure a child isn't produced!!!!

If the adoption agencies want a womb-fresh infant to sell, they need to get the direct relinquishment of BOTH parents otherwise MEN will continued to be discriminated against and continue to lose their children to the adoption industry!!

1. "...If you are going to have a federal law that will govern putative father registries, you might as well just make all adoption law federal law."

Adoption law is indeed state law, but the proposed federal bill would be a conditional grant, not a mandatory federal law.

2. "...Birthfathers are not the equal of birthmothers in an adoption situation. The birthmother is pregnant and gestates for nine months. Her identity is known...why is society under an obligation to protect "rights" in this situation? Why shouldn't the burden be on a man to locate the women he has chosen to have had sex with..."

True, unwed fathers who lack custodial relationships with their children are not similarly situated to unwed mothers. But even Utah acknowledges that the Constitution gives unwed fathers a reasonable opportunity to secure their parental rights. Society is under an obligation to protect father's rights to that extent.

3. "The state has an interest in seeing that children are brought up where possible in two parent homes."

But that interest, as the Utah Supreme Court has noted, is balanced with the State's interest in knowing promptly whether a father is willing and able to take parental responsibility. That fulfilled interest trumps the interest in a two parent home.

4. "The taxpayers...should not be required to spend...on a system that requires undue litigation to protect the rights of a father...not married to the mother...."

The national PFR bill, which is optional for the states, aims to protect the rights of both fathers and prospective adoptive parents by limiting litigation.

5. "....Do some registries require that fathers do some searching and file a notice with a state agency? Absolutely. And, this is entirely proper."

Actually, the point of a PFR is that it relieves the father of the need to search once he has reason to know of the child's location. PFRs are meant to locate the father, not to require the father to locate the mother.

6. "...most of these fathers in this situation never sought to do the most elementary things after they had sex. They did not maintain contact with the birthmother. They didn't consult with an attorney to try and find out what legal rights they might have...."

But in most of the cases I have been involved in, it was the mother who refused to keep adequate contact with the father during the pregnancy. Many fathers contact me, or the attorneys I work with, after receiving insufficient legal advice.

"This kind of law is unnecessary and wrong. It will add...difficulty to those who properly use the legal to place a child for adoption or those who struggle for years to adopt."

A federal registry is not wrong, but it can certainly be used wrongly, which is why one should not support the current bill. Mothers are not entitled to make adoption plans and people are not constitutionally entitled to adopt or to adopt easily. Plenty of kids in foster care are waiting to be adopted.

a lot has been said all ready that I 100% agree with. I'd just like to add that for the past several years, fathers have been brow beaten to "step up" and be a father. When they do, they get treated the same as those who don't want to. It's still a one way street for men who have children out of wedlock. The women have all the control and the system not only backs them up, they show them ways toget around a pesky father. Asl yourself a question, if the mother doesn't want the child... why would she care if the father does?

Without question, fathers should have a say in whether or not their child is placed for adoption. This outdated phrase that is used, putative father, to imply that the mother does not even know who the father is is both offensive and dismissive. I am not married to the father of my child. There was a time historically when his name would not have been put on the birth certificate simply because of that. I do not understand the concept that a father is somehow a lesser parent than a mother because that is what this type of situation implies. When a mother dies, do the children get placed for adoption because they only have a father left? No. Why are these fathers treated any differently?

It fiqures that the only commentor who agrees that Father's Rights are unnecessary is from Utah! Utah is the WORST state where adoption agencies actually SHIP pregnant women to becasue an unmarried father doesn't even have to sign a peice of paper. In fact, I have known men who were kept out of the hospitals while their children were being born and could do nothing about it.

My agency, a well reputed one in Massachusettes, INSTUCTED me how to negate my son's father's rights and helped me do it. They told me to LIE on the legal birth cetificate to say he was unknown when he was quite known. And then, they placed a legal ad that I am sure his father had no chance to ever see, that abolished all his rights to his ONLY child. Ethically and morally, they should have either told me I HAD to inform him of his child's impeding birth and my "decision" or, if I refused, made contact directly. Yet what they did was not only legal but also still a current practice in the adoption industry. Let me tell you that carring that guilt on my back for 19 years was an aweful heavy load and when I did tell him of his ONLY child almost 20 years later, his first words were "why didn't you tell me". Living with the knowledge that I did this to another human being will damn me forever. And it still happens everyday.. DISGUSTING!

No adoption should be finalized without the written and verbal consent of the natural father. A man should be notified if he is a father, no matter what. Our system goes after single and married men for child support when a mother wants to keep her child. Bingo! No man can escape the wrath of the Child Support Investigators! Severe penalties are handed out, including taking away the dead beat dad's drivers license, and in some locations, names are published in the paper of men who are denying child support.

From the child's point of view, of yes, every child deserves to be raised by both parents, or by the father if the mother wants out. No adoption should ever be made final without the father's being notified and given ample time to adjust to being a father. His rights to his child supercede any prospective adoptive parent's desire to adopt.

Children have a right to be parented by their biological relatives FIRST and FOREMOST when and if at all possible.

I applaud a father who wants to come forward to parent his child. The idea that a child is any less his simply because he does not have a legal marriage to the child's mother is remniscent of illegitimacy---an antiquated concept adoption has been hailed as the "solution" for.

When we give fathers actual rights so that even less babies get adopted, less adoption fees get collected. It threatens those 6-figure salaries many of those agency execs make. Let's be serious, it's not about women's/mother's rights. The only time anyone cares about these women is when it does something for the industry.

1. Just because a man does not gestate his child, doesn't make the child any less HIS.

2. A child's right to be raised by his/her REAL parent(s) needs to be respected and IS NOT. The adoption industry in collusion with states has seen to it to relinquish the rights of millions of fathers in this country without them being given the opportunity to know about and claim their child to raise. THIS IS DISGUSTING.

3. Two parent families? Are you kidding me? Many children are being adopted by single parents. Don't spew that two-parent malarcky here. No one is buying it.

4. You are right, taxpayers should not foot the bill for DNA testing, etc. No, PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PARENTS SHOULD FOOT THAT BILL.

5. Self-absorbed people should NOT adopt. If a child is not properly relinquished by BOTH parents, he/she should not be purchased by someone else to fulfill a "need" to parent.

1. Adoption law is state law. In our federal system of government, states have the responsibility for determining the how, when and why of adoption. If you are going to have a federal law that will govern putative father registries, you might as well just make all adoption law federal law.

2. This is a big one which alot of people don't want to accept. Birthfathers are not the equal of birthmothers in an adoption situation. The birthmother is pregnant and gestates for nine months. Her identity is known in 100% of all cases, unless she abandons her child. Its a very common thing for men to father a child and simply disappear or be impossible to locate. This is often, but not always a birthfather's fault. The question that really needs to be asked is why is society under an obligation to protect "rights" in this situation? Why shouldn't the burden be on a man to locate the women he has chosen to have had sex with and take affirmative steps if he chooses to claim a "right" to a baby fathered to a woman he has not married?

3. The state has an interest in seeing that children are brought up where possible in two parent homes.

4. The taxpayers of a state should not be required to spend their money on a system that requires undue litigation to protect the rights of a father who is not married to the mother of a child.

5. Even the most conservative states have some putative father registry. It furnishes some opportunity to a father in this situation to protect his rights. Do some registries require that fathers do some searching and file a notice with a state agency? Absolutely. And, this is entirely proper.

6. Why are most birthfathers in this situation? I won't dwell on the fact that to be a birthfather that a man must have chosen to have sex out of wedlock. What is important is that most of these fathers in this situation never sought to do the most elementary things after they had sex. They did not maintain contact with the birthmother. They didn't consult with an attorney to try and find out what legal rights they might have. They didn't contact any government offices and make inquiry. Many seem to feel society is obligated to look out for them. Again, I say why?

This kind of law is unnecessary and wrong. It will add more layers of difficulty to those who properly use the legal to place a child for adoption or those who struggle for years to adopt.

Of course a man should have a say over whether his children are given up for adoption! Is this even a serious question? Reverse the roles & see how absurd it sounds when you consider whether fathers should be allowed to relinquish their c...hildren for adoption when the mothers are capable & willing to raise their children. One can only relinquish their own parental rights, not the rights of the other parent!

The childrens' rights frequently seem to be overlooked or secondary. They also have the right to remain within their own families whenever safely possible. Only courts may determine, upon valid evidence, that any parent is unfit to raise their own children. It is not up to one parent to decide that for the other, nor for one parent to attempt to relinquish the other parent's rights to raise their common child. A child's relationship with his/her parents is separate from the relationship the parents may have with each other. In this age of easy DNA testing, marriage need not be the determing factor over whether a man is the actual father of a child.

The natural default setting should always be with the natural parents first, not with prospective adopters. When it's not possible with either parent, then guardianship with extended family members on both sides of the family should be considered next in order to keep the child within their own family. Stranger adoption should be a last resort for children who have no parents or those whose parents have had their rights officially terminated with just cause for the safety of the child & in cases where there is no possible extended family.

In cases where there is a parent who is capable & willing to raise their own child, adoption is simply not necessary. Look closely - those are the cases where you will find someone else's interests being considered first before the child's or the father's (i.e. someone employed in the adoption industry or prospective adoptive parents). Laws that attempt to circumvent a father's right to parent his own children, in order to create an adoption situation, are unethical.

The right to parent one's progeny is protected by the Constitution of the United States and all interference with such should be challenged as such.

Currently all states have Putative father Registries which are make it nearly impossible for father's to rescue a child they want to provide and care for from being adopted by strangers, as such adoptions are in demand and very profitable.

Erik Smith, a crusader for fathers' rights, did not stop his son's adoption with a family who had had possession of the child and the child had bonded with, but invoked his right as the child's father to be included in his son's life as a co-father.

Men have been denied their rights, as fathers, to raise their children.

Too many states allow a woman to relinquish her child for adoption without the child's father ever being found and notified that he has a child. Too many fathers have been kept completely in the dark, either intentionally or unintentionally, and are unaware that they even impregnated someone!

A father's rights are often terminated without his consent. This is a shameful act perpetrated by the adoption industry and it's appetite for womb-fresh babies to sell.

Before parental rights are terminated, the father or potential fathers should be located and DNA tested to confirm paternity. Once that is determined, he should be given up to 9 months to determine whether he wants to relinquish his parental rights or if he chooses to raise his child. (A woman is given 9 months to figure this out, so a man should be given the same opportunity.)

Any costs for DNA testing and for tracking down the child's father should be absorbed by the agency seeking the child's relinquishment for adoption. If the agency choses to pass that expense onto it's customers (prospective adoptive parents) then they should have every right to do so.

Every child deserves to be raised by his/her parents. If one cannot or will not raise the child, it's only fair that the other parent have an opportunity to do so.